Jo Swinson’s misguided maternalism
We Liberal Democrats do love a good banning. This is odd for a party that professes liberalism, a belief that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends as they see fit; a philosophy that trusts people to make choices for themselves.
Sadly, too many within our party do not, as Gladstone said to the Tories, trust the people. And for our parliamentary party, the people are all-too-often seen as immoral exploiters who need to be reined in, or as dumb victims who need to be saved from themselves.
Jo Swinson has today announced that the Liberal Democrats will seek to ban the “airbrushing” (I think they actually use computers these days) of images of models in campaigns aimed at under-16s, while campaigns aimed at older audiences will need to state that the photographs have been touched up.
Jo suggests that “We need to help protect children from these pressures” – referring to the effect on their psyche and behaviour of seeing images of beautiful people against whom they may measure themselves – “and we need to make a start by banning airbrushing in adverts aimed at them.”
Frankly, the whole argument is somewhat patronising to young women. As I have written before:
[The] argument is that the modelling industry is causing harm to women and particularly to teenage girls by socialising them to believe that a distorted parody of the natural human physique is an ideal-type to which they should aspire.
Implicit in this argument is the assumption that women, and particularly teenage girls (“Won’t somebody please think of the children”), are too stupid to make an informed judgement and too easily influenced by corporate imagery to be trusted to care for their own health. There follows the classic argument for censorship: the people are stupid, so must be protected from themselves.”
What underlies all this is not a concern with the practice of airbrushing but a long history of attacks upon modelling and the appreciation of physical beauty in general. It is part of an ongoing campaign that includes attempts to ban size 0 models, pornography and beauty contests. For the intellectually and philosophically inclined, judging people by their physical appearance is anathema. As Jo herself says, “The focus on women’s appearance has really got out of hand.”
There are several reasons for thinking that this policy is misguided. Firstly, “physical beauty” is in essence a snap-judgement of the genetic worth of a potential mate, and as such it is entirely functional at a basic biological level. That people are more discerning genetically is merely a function of wider choice: back when most of us never left the village in which we were born, we probably had the choice of a small handful of partners of a compatible age from among our neighbours (if we had any choice, that is).
Secondly, there is no way of measuring (as Jo implies that she has) that “young girls are under more pressure now than they were even five years ago”. This is also part of a historic trend, in this case the tendency to think that the youth today are either more badly behaved or are under more pressure than ever before. If every generation that feared for that the next was suffering more than the last was correct, we would by now be giving birth to a generation of sociopaths and neurotics. Some people think we are.
Thirdly, even if women are objectified and children are overly conscious of their bodies, there is no proven causal link between these phenomena and the practice of airbrushing. Jo is therefore committing one of the politicians cardinal sins: thrashing out with the one tool at her disposal – legislative coercion – based on a hunch.
Fourthly, if some people viewing pictures of models react in an adverse way, the fault lies in the viewer and not in that which is viewed. If government must intervene (and it is not clear that it should) then it should intervene at the point where the harm occurs, which is in the perception of the viewer. As with the freedom of expression argument (which does apply, but which most liberal audiences should understand implicitly and so not need me to rehearse) one should not respond to perceived offence by banning the offender from expressing themselves.
Of course, the reason why it is the marketing industry and not teenagers’ perceptions that are the target of Jo’s proposals is obvious. Just as water always follows the easiest path downhill, so politicians find it easier to tackle any problem by banning something rather than helping those who react badly to it; and they also find it easier to assault the liberties of “businesses” (which in practice means the minority of the public that owns and runs the companies that are the subject of today’s broadside) than to address the faults of “people” (the larger numbers who might not like to be told that they are responsible for their own behaviour).
Again quoting my previous article:
Even if it is true that the existence or prominence of [airbrushed] models adversely influences people’s behaviour (which has in no way been proven), it is still not government’s role to protect individuals from their own actions. The state’s role is to protect people from being coerced by other people; to allow the individual the maximum freedom that does not restrict the freedom of others. If an individual leads an unhealthy lifestyle, the government should not interfere to make them more healthy. We would not countenance force feeding or forced exercise, and I hope that we would not ban tobacco. Similarly, we should not ban images of thin models, people sitting on their sofas eating chips, or smokers (a ludicrous suggestion, I’m sure you’ll agree).
This is a classic censorship issue, an attack on freedom of expression masked as a (paternalistic [or in this case, maternalistic]) effort to protect individuals from themselves. It is a shame that our [elected] members support it.
Perhaps the final damning piece of evidence that this is half-baked, ill thought out and arrogant comes from Harriet Harman, who said of the policy that “We”, meaning her discredited party and government, “are happy to back this campaign.”
Enough said?
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
When I got my graduation pic taken, there was an option to have it digitally touched up. Clearly people don’t mind it all that much.
If there really is great demand for ‘natural’ (or at least ‘make-up only’) pictures, ‘real size’ models and for beauty not to be taken as important, maybe Jo Swinson will exploit this gap in the market she claims to have identified by setting up a suitable magazine or contest?
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Hmmm….. There are two issues here though, aren’t there? There is the requirement to add information (which is normally a good thing for markets to function properly), and the banning for the U-16s. Would you lift the watershed, allow cigarette advertising in ‘Smash Hits’ etc? There is a view- held by liberals and non- that we can and do restrict liberty for children: we require them to go to school, for example. When they become adults, we butt out.
So, how illiberal actually is this?
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I’m not sure it if it is odd for a party that profeses liberalism. Stalin professed that the USSR’s constitution was the most democratic in the world.
It would be odd if the party normally practiced liberalism but since it opposes free choice, & free markets 7 supports racial genocide, slavery & kidnapping people & dissecting them to steal their organs Jo’s offence against liberalism seems pretty minor.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I agree with much of this. A few comments though:
At present, government doesn’t trust children like we trust adults. There are age restrictions on voting, sale of alcohol and tobacco, army recruitment and sex. We could address these on a point by point basis, but your wider ‘trust the people’ point would mean that all age restrictions should be abolished on principle. Perhaps you are arguing for this?
On this issue, yes, Jo is saying that children are too stupid to judge that an image has been manipulated. Indeed, surely the whole point of manipulating an advert in photoshop is to manipulate the viewer into wanting to purchase a product. I’m not saying that it’s A Bad Thing, but if people weren’t influenced by airbrushed adverts, advertisers wouldn’t bother spending money on it?
Also, regarding your second point, it is possible to measure the number of girls with eating disorders, which would surely imply an increase in social pressure for girls to look thin.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Steve,
I accept your point that “the requirement to add information is normally a good thing for markets to function properly”, but the information is already out there. Is there any adult who does not know that photos in magazines are touched up? All this policy does is add an unnecessary burden on the marketing industry in a misguided attempt to alter perceptions of beauty in our society.
As for children and your spurious cigarette advertising analogy, as I noted in the article there is no causal link between airbrushing and childhood image problems. What is more, those airbrushing the photographs are not directly causing harm to children in the same way as a person selling a child cigarettes is doing. A better analogy would be to ban from magazines aimed a children any picture that shows an adult doing anything remotely dangerous, a suggestion that would pretty-much wipe out the comics industry.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Duncan,
I don’t agree that “the whole point of manipulating an advert in photoshop is to manipulate the viewer into wanting to purchase a product” (my emphasis). The two meanings of manipulate are different. It is perfectly possible to manipulate an image without manipulating the viewer. The more overt uses of Photoshop are good examples of this. As I said to Steve (after you made your comment, to be fair), the audiance is aware that the images are touched up. They are no more manipulated by that than I am manipulated by George Lucas when Industrial Light & Magic adds beams of light to the the two characters supposedly battling it out on the cinema screen.
With regards children, I have no problem with restrictions that affect children but not adults. I accept that children need additional protection. But to justify it you have to be able to prove direct and deliberate harm, which you cannot do in this case.
Your suggestion that we “measure the number of girls with eating disorders, which would surely imply an increase in social pressure for girls to look thin” is a case in point. That might perhaps demonstrate a correlation, but it does not demonstrate causation. It may in fact merely demonstrate a coincidence. The inverse link between piracy and global warming is a (light-hearted) case in point.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I posted on Jo’s Facebook page that how can we be sure photos of her aren’t airbrushed & that she’s not setting unrealistic expectations on how MPs should look lol
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Tom,
I agree that most people know that airbrushing takes place. But the (alleged) problem is that they don’t always know when it has taken place. Subtle airbrushing is meant to look realistic; Star Wars isn’t.
I agree that there is not enough evidence of direct harm to justify government intervention here. But ’social pressure is causing eating disorders’ is a reasonable hypothesis, if not proven.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Yes what next the X Files comes with a disclaimer ‘This Is Not A Documentry’
Personally anybody who buys Vogue & starves themselves to look like any of the models photographed really needs to get a life
In fact anybody who buys Vogue period needs to get a life
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I haven’t a clue how many pictures in (say) the London Newspaper (which I read on the bus are touched up in some way. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with requiring magazines to say that the pics have been changed.
Does Tom also think that DFS ought to be allowed to continue to digitally shrink the models on their sofas, to make them look bigger, as they used to do? What about pictures of products for sale? Should shops and manufacturers be allowed to digitally manipulate them as well - perhaps Dell should be allowed to show a bigger monitor than it actually supplies.
Liberals should defend honestly, and require people who are manipulating things to say so. Good luck Jo.
PS Just for the record the pic at http://www.leunig.net was not manipulated. For better or worse, that is what I look like.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
This is ridiculous - yet more proof that there is NO difference between the main 3 parties, this could just as easily have been a Labour or Tory idea. Actually, I take that back, I don’t think the Tories are quite that bad.
Well done to the “Liberal” Democrats.
LET’S BAN EVERYTHING! AND INCREASE TAX! VOTE LIBLABCON! YEAHHHH!
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I am grateful for your refreshing article Tom. Another reason why this proposal is illogical and illiberal is that it would be almost impossible to enforce, baring a massive expansion of intrusive and expensive policing by the state upon the activities of the media industries.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
We Liberal Democrats do love a good banning. This is odd for a party that professes liberalism, a belief that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends as they see fit; a philosophy that trusts people to make choices for themselves.
I don’t know the wholly appropriate antonym for denouement, but whatever it is, this is a great example.
Herein lies the problem for Lib Dems IMO. It’s why I used to vote that way but don’t anymore, and why one of my blog tags is “Lib Dems are not the answer”.
Have the SDP faction overwhelmed the Liberals, post-merger?
Get the likes of Liberal Visionists such as Charlotte Gore, Mark Littlewood, Costigan Quist etc into policy-making and Lib Dems may see an end to the stalling fortunes where no advantage is being made of a disastrous ban-centric Labour party.
Flame away.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Even worse than the fact that it is a terrible idea is that it is a farciacally unrealistic one, does it stand any chance of becoming law? - No, even with harman’s support it is obviously unworkable and idiotic.
Will it win votes? - No.
Will it help define the liberal democrats so that people feel we stand for something for once - No.
Is it transparently a poor atempt to grab a few inches on page 4 of tabloid C for a day - yes.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
It seems illiberal to force the addition of text to say that a photo has been airbrushed. People should be free to publish freely wherever possible. This is just meddling.
My objection to this proposal is not so much about its impact, it would be minor. The problem is that it contradicts what being a Liberal means. Liberal Democrats will only be able to form a government if people are clear about what we stand for as a party and support it.
At the moment the Lib Dems who get elected are electoral wizards, like Jo Swinson. The problem is we don’t and will never have 600 such candidates and therefore we need a consistent policy to bolster our vote across the country. Populist ‘banning’ policies such as banning touching up tend to end up contradicting populist ‘liberal’ policies such as a free press.
It is true that Libertarians do not support libertarianism for those below the age of majority. If this had been proposed for under 16’s in isolation with an explanation as to why it was OK to tie the hands of the press then it would not confuse the electorate, but this is the opposite of what happened here.
Liberalism as a political movement cannot be destroyed because it has a real philosophy at its heart. The continued existence of the party is I believe a surprise to Labour and Conservative leaders of the 70’s. Unless we can have consistent policies and articulate them in a way to get the electorate to support them we will not ,however, make a breakthrough electorally.
Ed Joyce
August 4th, 2009 at 12:56 am
More ban-sturbation
August 4th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I can’t speak for Tom, but:
“Does Tom also think that DFS ought to be allowed to continue to digitally shrink the models on their sofas, to make them look bigger, as they used to do? What about pictures of products for sale? Should shops and manufacturers be allowed to digitally manipulate them as well - perhaps Dell should be allowed to show a bigger monitor than it actually supplies.”
Surely those examples would be examples of outright fraud or deliberately misleading advertising, rather than manipulating an image for simple aesthetic effect? Unless it’s someone like WeightWatchers, say, making a model look thinner to sell themselves, then it’s not the same thing unless you’re arguing that all forms of photographic manipulation from lighting through filters and props to digital manipulation should be banned.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:01 am
In what way is the continued dishonest use of the word “liberal” in the name of the LibDems of benefit to liberals. Surely all it does is confuse liberals into thinking the party represents them when we all know nothing could be further from the truth.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:33 am
If girls are under so much pressure to be thin, why are so many of them morbidly obese? Everywhere you go in the UK, the obese are spilling off of the sidewalks. The argument that modeling is an influence on the young is utter garbage.
Jo Swinson is a principle-less naive and silly little girl, who, thinking herself unattractive, is the one feeling the pressure to be beautiful; she is projecting her own damaged self image onto all the young girls of the UK. A totally despicable creature, a dyed in the wool statist, and a typical Liberal Democrat.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Is it ‘utter garbage’? Certainly many young girls who suffer from anorexia and bulemia cite the influence of the fashion industry. Even if you don’t like the policy, it is short-sighted to not admit the problem.
Thanks to Tom P for addressing my original points. Some quick rejoinders…
1. How can you be sure that there is no causal link? Is there some research to back this up? It isn’t the same point of there being no proof that there is a causal link- you’re saying that there definitely isn’t one. Some proof here would be very powerful, considering the high level of (at least circumstantial) evidence to the contrary.
2. Is the information unnecessary? Certainly a notice that the image has been touched up would be a useful reminder. People do take it on faith that these images are broadly representative of the image they are supposed to be of. That’s how I recognise Lohan, Johansen et al. in my London Lite. A reminder that this isn’t them would be welcome.
Lastly, Tim Leunig’s comments are on the money.
Getting all ‘Lib Dems love banning’ stuff is silly. Most of us wouldn’t ban anything, but we also believe in making markets run properly and doing our best to close assymetries in information and to look after kids before we think they’re ready to be left on their own.
2.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Anybody remember when Marilyn Manson was blamed for the Columbine shootings by the Christian right.
Well what Jo is doing is not that much different she’s just blaming another section of the media for the ills of society.
As far as I’m concerned art imitates life.
Now maybe somebody needs to ask why are girls portrayed as so skinny in the media?
August 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Ziggy, you seem to have had a copy + paste attack. Shall I edit?
August 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
No- I think it’s quite apt.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Julian yeah not sure what happened thanks
August 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Sorry Steve, edits made.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Okay this isn’t the most important of issues unless you passionately care about freedom of expression however this question is valid whatever the issue.
Other then bitching on this blog how many of you will write to Jo Swinson & challenge her directly?
Its no use just bitching this & that is illiberal you need to be prepared to do something about it, you need to protest your opinion at those you want to infringe upon your liberty.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
All photographs of models should carry a caption stating whether or not the model has been touched up by the photographer.
The public have a right to know.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I’m all for honesty but should Star Wars come with a disclaimer saying that CGI was used in the making of this film?
August 4th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Models should not be allowed to wear make-up. It puts unpardonable pressure on teenage girls to have perfect skin. In fact, far from banning burqas, perhaps they should be made compulsory.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
haha, very good point Bishop Hill
August 4th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Paintings by Picasso and Dali should carry a warning that the women depicted are not actually that shape - lest impressionable young art lovers resort to surgery to achieve the look.
And El Greco’s works should no longer be displayed, as they encourage an emphasis on excessive elongation and atttenuation.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Ban Modigliani’s stuff too !
August 5th, 2009 at 1:40 am
If this nonsensical gimmick becomes in any way a flagship/serious party policy then I’m afraid the party has lost my vote. Its embarrassing that the anyone even contemplated giving Jo the green light on this one. Our political climate is just embarassing sometimes
August 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You can thank me later but I got this story & this website a plug on US radio
http://ziggyslibertyportal.net/FTL2009-08-04.mp3
(unfortunately its mot brought up until the second hour of the show)
August 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Thanks, Ziggy - am a bit pressured at work, can you specify how far into that MP3 the issue is raised?
August 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
About 43 minutes
Oh yeah the email on your blog isn’t working
August 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Though the plug isn’t made until 50 minutes
August 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Thanks again.
Which e-mail, admin@liberal-vision.org?
August 5th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
no the one on orange by name
August 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Great stuff, have listened to the link, thanks Ziggy.
Everyone should listen to this, it’s quite amusing, too:
http://ziggyslibertyportal.net/FTL2009-08-04.mp3
It’s about half way through the bar, a little before.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Does the comment from Steve summarise the Party ?
“Most of us wouldn’t ban anything, but ….”
He then claims he’s doing it “for the children”.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
[...] Dem blogosphere, particularly the Libertarians, love to get terribly exercised at the prospect of banning things. It’s just not liberal! we are constantly reminded, or more precisely, it is Fundamentally [...]
August 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Steve, if by ‘we’ you mean society, then ‘we’ do not require children to go to school. That is a choice made by parents.
More banning and more regulation will not protect anyone. Far better to teach children to treat all adversing will a large dose of scepticism, a mind set which will serve them well in adult life.
August 9th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
[...] Dem blogosphere, particularly the Libertarians, love to get terribly exercised at the prospect of banning things. It’s just not liberal! we are constantly reminded, or more precisely, it is Fundamentally [...]
August 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“Steve, if by ‘we’ you mean society, then ‘we’ do not require children to go to school. That is a choice made by parents.
More banning and more regulation will not protect anyone. Far better to teach children to treat all advertising will a large dose of scepticism, a mind set which will serve them well in adult life.”
And this is so easy to do, don’t ban channels with adds in your home as many parents do, let them watch them, buy those Lelly Kelly shoes from the glitzy ad, let them learn that the sequins fall off and they look like tat in a couple of weeks. Talk about how much they cost, look at other shoes and see what else we might have bought with the money.
The contrast between reality and the story told in the ad is a fabulous lesson learned for a 4 year old. It’s so much easier and more effective to let it be learned naturally than to try to impose an environment that protects them from the pressures of the real world.
We need to have less fear of the impact of society and advertising on our children, show them more trust and allow them to discern themselves. It’s is people who have never seen children who are guided and supported in this way who make such silly suggestions as this one.
August 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
‘More banning and more regulation will not protect anyone’
Good example of this is that if you ban abortion then it doesn’t mean that there won’t be any abortions performed just they’d be performed in far unhealthier circumstances.
I’d add that I say this as somebody who does believe abortion to be murder.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:39 am
“The regulation of photographic representation proposed by the Liberal-Democrats constitutes a new low in legislative vapidity, foolishness and ignorance. An astounding inverse ratio of regulatory ambition to actual knowledge of that which is putatively to be regulated.
This law, floated by liberal-Democarat MP Jo Swinson is conceived and presented in terms of a “fair-play” approach to the “honest” representation of, to be specific, women in the media. It is proposed that this regulation need peculiarly apply to “digital” modification of images. Such thinking only being possible on the part of persons who are utterly ignorant of the processes involved in determining impressions of a model in photography in any case. It rests on a complete ignorance of the role played by such variables as camera and lens type, focal-length, angle of shot, type, angle and mix of lighting, distance of camera from model, position of photographer and pose of model….in determining the appearance of such things as the models height, weight, bodily proportions, limb length, facial features, complexion, age and even gender. Quite irrespective of any subsequent “manipulation” and in any case, since photography began, “digital” being neither here nor there. With such variables it is entirely possible to make a person look six inches taller, five stone lighter and ten years younger. Without any “digital manipulation”. I haven’t even mentioned invisible tape, safety pins or the effect of simply shoving some tissues in the right place before a shot!
Will the law require a summary of all these variables to be included with every publication of an image? To be frank, with modern EXIF data, it would be possible to require the declaration of most such information. How ridiculous would that be! Yet how ridiculous is a proposed law that would attend to only the one post-exposure feature of the process, because it is garlanded by that magic word “digital”, which in the minds of only the knowledge-free seems to portend a kind of distortion unique and unprecedented in the annals of photography. To such people who no doubt believe that a non-digital image is one from a camera that doesn’t lie! In other words, someone who seems to know or pretend to know utterly nothing about photography!
Next there arises the question as to whom the proposed regulation would apply? Will it apply to all photographic images or only those of women? To all women or only celebrities? To all photographers or only professionals? To all professionals or only those who are working for “the media”? To all publications or only “glossies” or those with a certain circulation? Books as well or only serials? If not both, then what of images from books ( such as a limited edition movie-related photo-book ) reproduced in a magazine? So would it apply to all books? Does it then represent a new regime of regulation spanning all of photography? Will my pictures of Aunty Norah have to have a “health warning” ( “this image uses digital techniques to disguise Aunty Norah’s weight…sorry Aunty Norah, I had to declare this by law” )? Or will it only apply to some photography? In which case who decides where it does or doesn’t apply? What of photos in an exhibition? What if the image in an exhibition is exempt but can then be reproduced in a magazine, carrying over that exemption? Or will that require retrograde application of the rules backwards onto the original in the exhibition?
I don’t think the politicians who proposed this law have actually thought about such questions. But I am only getting started. It gets worse!
Ms Swinson chose on Channel Four news to refer to the example of a picture of Keira Knightley produced in relation to the movie “King Arthur”. It was stated that “digital manipulation” were used to make her breasts seem larger. Now, leaving aside the fact that skilled photographers have always had that ability, and used it, since the beginning of Hollywood, this poses other problems peculiar to the digital environment. Today, many movies are to a very large extent a product of CGI ( Computer Generated Imagery ). Indeed, we are on the verge of having entire characters inserted from a computer template, which may or may not be modelled on a real actor. Which may or may not “enhance” such features as Keira Knightley’s breasts. In any event, all the representational factors that apply to still photography, such as focal-length, lighting, angle of shot, have equal bearing upon the moving image. Are we to take it that every appearance of Keira Knightley on-screen is to be accompanied by a “health-warning” such as “…Keira’s breasts aren’t as big as they look” ? On the other hand, if the actress has her breasts digitally enhanced throughout the movie, is this going to be exempted from the rules applying to the stills and promotional shots? If not, that is a pretty gigantic omission. Given that readers in a magazine will flip over a photo in a second but must sit through a movie for hours! What about magazines publishing “stills” supposedly extracted from the movie and in that case exempt? Who will sit down poring over magazines trying to determine which images were taken from a movie and exempt from the regulations and which were not, and which among those not extracted from the footage but shot on set are or are not legitimate? How would such determinations be made? For literally millions of images published every year!
As I say, I could go on. I have only just started with the litany of difficult questions posed by such a putative law. But I think we have here already enough to indicate that at the very least such a law would be more full of loop-holes than La Haye Sainte at the battle of Waterloo! Yet, that if it were imposed, such a regulatory regime would be as ridiculous, encumbering and unfair as it is absurd.
Nor is this the end of the issue. For the very fact that a member of parliament would seriously conceive, devote time to and purloin resources to the legislative process of considering such a law is a shocking indictment of the condition of politics and government in Britain today. I recall how, during the Cold War we would laugh at Albania’s law making beards illegal. The irony is that we were not then aware of issues relating to the suppression of Islamist dissent as we are now. So we now realise that Hoxa had a practical motive for his barmy ban! Yet today, in this country, our legislators can seriously propose, table for discussion and squander time and resources upon laws that seek to impose regulations upon even the most innocuous activities. Moreover based upon both an absolute and astounding ignorance of those activities and apparently an utterly clue-less inability to think through any of the implications of the proposition.
This proposed law is sinister, stupid and actually rather sick. That such a law can even be contemplated embodies the divorce of our governing oligarchies from the real world in which under their laws the rest of us must live, and the utterly parlous state of British “democracy”. “
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
[...] to suggest that modern women can’t cope with modern media? Tom Papworth thinks so as stated on this blog earlier in the [...]
September 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
[...] suspect that Liberal Vision may have some sympathy with that (see airbrushing). In our office, the total proliferation of [...]
April 20th, 2010 at 8:58 am
[...] negative body images by regulating airbrushing in adverts”. Liberal Vision have taken issue with this ‘maternalism’. Libertarian Tom writes: Even if it is true that the [...]
July 14th, 2010 at 7:25 am
A business proposal is produced to reflect the professionalism of your organisation and is there to persuade a buyer that your goods or services are valuable to them. Together with any other collateral it is the proposition which you are giving to the client and what will hopefully win much more function for the company.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
The foolish of Jo Swinsons ludicrous proposal most concretely depends on her utter ignorance of photography. Any photographer of any level of skill will make myriad judgements in the course of their work (eg, focal length, angle, of shot, elevation of shot, exposure, backlighting, etc, etc, etc) that have effects upon the image which are more far reaching than even the most extensive digital “air brushing”.
Take as an exmple this very image of Jo Swinson herself shown here: An unwisely high contrast shot from above with a mildly wide focal length. The angle of view, elevation of the shot and contrast compresses her height whilst exagerating the perspective effects upon her head in relation to her body and makes her complexion appear red and blotchy. Entirely without recourse to “airbrushing” it altogether makes her look like a troll out of Lord of The Rings! Any decent photographer could have made her look a thousand times better without a moments worth of digital “airbrushing”.
So “airbrushing” or no “airbrushing” (and quite what people like this imagine they mean by the phrase is itself unclear) the ways in which a photograph represents a subject offer almost unlimited control on the resulting image. It always has. It always will. Its the nature of the medium and theres nothing you can do about it!
July 15th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
That was ment to read “foolishness…”
July 15th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
…which in turn was meant to read “meant to read…”